(04-11-2019 12:15 PM)Wolfman Wrote: The BE hasn't been up to its normal lately but it's still considered a power conference for BB. It would give the former BE teams a chance to play some of their old rivals. Lots of regional interest.

Since the ACC has 15 teams and the BE only has 10, would only the top 10 teams in the ACC participate or would the top 5 BE teams play 2 games?

(04-11-2019 12:15 PM)Wolfman Wrote: The BE hasn't been up to its normal lately but it's still considered a power conference for BB. It would give the former BE teams a chance to play some of their old rivals. Lots of regional interest.

Since the ACC has 15 teams and the BE only has 10, would only the top 10 teams in the ACC participate or would the top 5 BE teams play 2 games?

Louisville, GT, Clemson, and FSU have OOC rivals. Maybe schedule them around the same time. ND might fit in that category as well.

(04-11-2019 12:15 PM)Wolfman Wrote: The BE hasn't been up to its normal lately but it's still considered a power conference for BB. It would give the former BE teams a chance to play some of their old rivals. Lots of regional interest.

It ended because it helped make the Big East seem like a competitor with the ACC. That had to be killed off and eventually the old Big East had to be killed off. The ACC isn't going to prop up the Big East. The ACC is stronger if the Big East continues its slide back into meaninglessness.

It ended because it helped make the Big East seem like a competitor with the ACC. That had to be killed off and eventually the old Big East had to be killed off. The ACC isn't going to prop up the Big East. The ACC is stronger if the Big East continues its slide back into meaninglessness.

Yes.

If that is the reason the oBE challenge was cancelled, we should cancel the B1G challenge.

I believe it was the oBE that cancelled the challenge. The ACC then approached the B1G.

It ended because it helped make the Big East seem like a competitor with the ACC. That had to be killed off and eventually the old Big East had to be killed off. The ACC isn't going to prop up the Big East. The ACC is stronger if the Big East continues its slide back into meaninglessness.

Yes.

If that is the reason the oBE challenge was cancelled, we should cancel the B1G challenge.

I believe it was the oBE that cancelled the challenge. The ACC then approached the B1G.

If the old Big East cancelled the series, it was a horrible decision. It put them temporarily on an even footing with the ACC.

It ended because it helped make the Big East seem like a competitor with the ACC. That had to be killed off and eventually the old Big East had to be killed off. The ACC isn't going to prop up the Big East. The ACC is stronger if the Big East continues its slide back into meaninglessness.

Yes.

If that is the reason the oBE challenge was cancelled, we should cancel the B1G challenge.

I believe it was the oBE that cancelled the challenge. The ACC then approached the B1G.

If the old Big East cancelled the series, it was a horrible decision. It put them temporarily on an even footing with the ACC.

You seem to be a revisionist of history. The BE had actually surpassed the ACC in fan interest and performance. Back then Virginia had not yet become Virginia today, and the ACC was just UNC and Duke with an occasional good year from a couple of other schools. This while the BE was regularly sending 9-11 schools to the Tourney, and still the only league to send eleven teams, and playing in MSG. Still the only league to send 3 teams to the final four.
A basketball league with Uconn, Syracuse, Louisville, ND, Nova and Cincinatti didnt need any props from any other league. And who do you think ESPN started Big Monday with?

Which version of the Big East are you talking about? The ACC was regularly sending 6 teams (75% of the conference) to the tourney throughout the 80’s, so no, the Big East did not surpass the ACC when the challenge started.

Regularly sending 9-11? I count 8 four times (literally 50% of the conference), 9 once, and 11 once. Bragging about getting 11 teams in when only two made it to the second weekend doesn’t really help your argument. That Big (Giant) East was all about beating up on one another and getting a bunch of teams in because of the parity.

(04-11-2019 09:52 PM)esayem Wrote: Which version of the Big East are you talking about? The ACC was regularly sending 6 teams (75% of the conference) to the tourney throughout the 80’s, so no, the Big East did not surpass the ACC when the challenge started.

Regularly sending 9-11? I count 8 four times (literally 50% of the conference), 9 once, and 11 once. Bragging about getting 11 teams in when only two made it to the second weekend doesn’t really help your argument. That Big (Giant) East was all about beating up on one another and getting a bunch of teams in because of the parity.

Not bragging anymore than the folks claiming that the ACC propped up the BE, which is crazy talk. And Im sure the BE sent nine teams to the tourney on more than one occasion. The bigger point is that the BE did not need the ACC to prop it up. If it did, it would have never canceled the ACC/BE challenge. And when we talk about surpassing the ACC, its more than on the court. Its the perception of fans. The BE was every bit as high profile as the ACC almost from the first game played as a conference. They had wackier coaches with bigger personalities. Syracuse vs Georgetown was the biggest rivalry in basketball until the ninties when John Thompson retired and Coach K arrived at Duke. Both leagues had their moments in the spoltlight in the 90's.

But it was in 2005 when things changed. That was when Louisville, Cinci, Marquette and Depaul and USF entered BE basketball. The BE tourney just outshined all the other tournies. MSG had a lot of folks for the tourney on day one every year compared to mostly empty arenas for the ACC tourney. You can talk about your tournies being sold out as much as you like but actual butts in the seats? Well the BE had a whole lot more for day one and two. There was just a lot more media and hype for the BE tourney at MSG than there was for the ACC tourney where ever it was held. BE championship game on saturday night rather than sunday afternoon probably had something to do with that.

The ACC has tried to emulate some of the things that the BE was successful with, such as getting in on Big Monday as soon as SU and Pitt joined the ACC. Trying to play its tourny at MSG, and moving its tourney championship from sunday to Saturday night. Those were the things that the BE did that was right. But unfortunately the BE did many things that were wrong, which put itself in a position to be poached. From 2008, I would say, to 2012 the BE outshined every other league. Nothing wrong with admitting it, if you are being honest with yourself. One thing is for certain; The BE did not need the ACC to prop it up. The BE propped itself up.

It ended because it helped make the Big East seem like a competitor with the ACC. That had to be killed off and eventually the old Big East had to be killed off. The ACC isn't going to prop up the Big East. The ACC is stronger if the Big East continues its slide back into meaninglessness.

Yes.

If that is the reason the oBE challenge was cancelled, we should cancel the B1G challenge.

I believe it was the oBE that cancelled the challenge. The ACC then approached the B1G.

If the old Big East cancelled the series, it was a horrible decision. It put them temporarily on an even footing with the ACC.

You seem to be a revisionist of history. The BE had actually surpassed the ACC in fan interest and performance. Back then Virginia had not yet become Virginia today, and the ACC was just UNC and Duke with an occasional good year from a couple of other schools. This while the BE was regularly sending 9-11 schools to the Tourney, and still the only league to send eleven teams, and playing in MSG. Still the only league to send 3 teams to the final four.
A basketball league with Uconn, Syracuse, Louisville, ND, Nova and Cincinatti didnt need any props from any other league. And who do you think ESPN started Big Monday with?

It ended because it helped make the Big East seem like a competitor with the ACC. That had to be killed off and eventually the old Big East had to be killed off. The ACC isn't going to prop up the Big East. The ACC is stronger if the Big East continues its slide back into meaninglessness.

Yes.

If that is the reason the oBE challenge was cancelled, we should cancel the B1G challenge.

I believe it was the oBE that cancelled the challenge. The ACC then approached the B1G.

If the old Big East cancelled the series, it was a horrible decision. It put them temporarily on an even footing with the ACC.

You seem to be a revisionist of history. The BE had actually surpassed the ACC in fan interest and performance. Back then Virginia had not yet become Virginia today, and the ACC was just UNC and Duke with an occasional good year from a couple of other schools. This while the BE was regularly sending 9-11 schools to the Tourney, and still the only league to send eleven teams, and playing in MSG. Still the only league to send 3 teams to the final four.
A basketball league with Uconn, Syracuse, Louisville, ND, Nova and Cincinatti didnt need any props from any other league. And who do you think ESPN started Big Monday with?

I'll answer that: Big Monday was originally one game each from the Big East and the Big XII.

I love ACC basketball. That said, there certainly was a period of time when the Big East was better. In fact, I distinctly remember the ACC stating they were going to change the way fouls were called to be more like the Big East - so that ACC teams would be better equipped to win NCAA Tournament games.

Both conferences had impressive basketball history. One of them continues to have. That's all that needs to be said. Trying to deny Big East history is ignorant, petty, or possibly both. ACC fans should stop doing it, IMO.

(04-11-2019 07:17 PM)Wolfman Wrote: The AAC would be reasonable. I'm not sure about the A10.

Yes.

If that is the reason the oBE challenge was cancelled, we should cancel the B1G challenge.

I believe it was the oBE that cancelled the challenge. The ACC then approached the B1G.

If the old Big East cancelled the series, it was a horrible decision. It put them temporarily on an even footing with the ACC.

You seem to be a revisionist of history. The BE had actually surpassed the ACC in fan interest and performance. Back then Virginia had not yet become Virginia today, and the ACC was just UNC and Duke with an occasional good year from a couple of other schools. This while the BE was regularly sending 9-11 schools to the Tourney, and still the only league to send eleven teams, and playing in MSG. Still the only league to send 3 teams to the final four.
A basketball league with Uconn, Syracuse, Louisville, ND, Nova and Cincinatti didnt need any props from any other league. And who do you think ESPN started Big Monday with?

I'll answer that: Big Monday was originally one game each from the Big East and the Big XII.

I love ACC basketball. That said, there certainly was a period of time when the Big East was better. In fact, I distinctly remember the ACC stating they were going to change the way fouls were called to be more like the Big East - so that ACC teams would be better equipped to win NCAA Tournament games.

Both conferences had impressive basketball history. One of them continues to have. That's all that needs to be said. Trying to deny Big East history is ignorant, petty, or possibly both. ACC fans should stop doing it, IMO.

Actually, both conferences continue to have impressive basketball history. You cant forget about what Nova has done out of the BE.

Nobody is denying Big East history, I just don’t think it surpasses the ACC. Look at the winning percentage per year and you’ll find the ACC has a much better overall record. Nine times the ACC has had a winning percentage over .650 as a conference, Big East: twice. Statistically, the best Big East year was the very first when they only played 6 conference games and demolished Little Sisters of the Poor and the St. Oblivious schools that should be D2. In 2004, the ACC finished with 6 of 9 teams ranked in the AP and sent six to the Dance. The next two teams finished with 19 and 18 wins apiece. Much stronger top to bottom than the BE.

If you want to argue media impact and so forth fine, but objectively the ACC is the best. That’s why the Big East Crown Jewels are now in the ACC and not the other way around.

(04-12-2019 11:55 AM)esayem Wrote: Nobody is denying Big East history, I just don’t think it surpasses the ACC. Look at the winning percentage per year and you’ll find the ACC has a much better overall record. Nine times the ACC has had a winning percentage over .650 as a conference, Big East: twice. Statistically, the best Big East year was the very first when they only played 6 conference games and demolished Little Sisters of the Poor and the St. Oblivious schools that should be D2. In 2004, the ACC finished with 6 of 9 teams ranked in the AP and sent six to the Dance. The next two teams finished with 19 and 18 wins apiece. Much stronger top to bottom than the BE.

If you want to argue media impact and so forth fine, but objectively the ACC is the best. That’s why the Big East Crown Jewels are now in the ACC and not the other way around.

Is that the reason that one of the ACC's crown jewels are in the BIG, because the BIG has better bb than the ACC?

(04-12-2019 11:55 AM)esayem Wrote: Nobody is denying Big East history, I just don’t think it surpasses the ACC. Look at the winning percentage per year and you’ll find the ACC has a much better overall record. Nine times the ACC has had a winning percentage over .650 as a conference, Big East: twice. Statistically, the best Big East year was the very first when they only played 6 conference games and demolished Little Sisters of the Poor and the St. Oblivious schools that should be D2. In 2004, the ACC finished with 6 of 9 teams ranked in the AP and sent six to the Dance. The next two teams finished with 19 and 18 wins apiece. Much stronger top to bottom than the BE.

If you want to argue media impact and so forth fine, but objectively the ACC is the best. That’s why the Big East Crown Jewels are now in the ACC and not the other way around.

Is that the reason that one of the ACC's crown jewels are in the BIG, because the BIG has better bb than the ACC?

I think they left because they didn’t know how to budget and they had some high ranking people in charge that wanted to hobnob with their Big Ten buddies.

Just for clarity - because I think there seems to be some disconnect as to the time period in question - I'm suggesting that the best season for the Big East was 1985. That year, the Final Four was Georgetown, St. John's, Villanova, and Memphis St.